This Forum is brought to you by The Mastiff Sweet Spot and Friends of the Forum.
Sign up Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #1 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2353347/Police-shoot-kill-Rottweiler-street-dog-runs-owner-arrested-obstruction-justice.html

Warning graphic content

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Cindy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #2 
How about the owner needs to be more responsible for his dog?   This man was interfering with police and what they were doing;  yes, he put the dog up in the car, but he left the windows down, and he did not comply with police officers demands at first.  The police officers were involved in a ARMED ROBBERY CALL.    Would you have put your dog in this position knowing what your dog will probably do...and did?  I sure as heck wouldn't. This is very sad that the dog lost it's life, but please explain  to me why you  honestly think this was the police's fault??  Also...the following is a different article on the scenario (that I had  read this morning)  giving a bit of a different picture to this incident:  
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/police-shoot-dog_n_3530990.html

__________________
Cindy
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
please explain  to me why you  honestly think this was the police's fault??


I stated that cops need better training. I didn't say they were at fault.

Certainly the owner of the dog should have used better judgment during the encounter.

But, should he have left the dog in a hot car with the windows up?

Should the cops have first told the man to secure the dog before placing him in cuffs?

Did they need to justify the killing by saying they were protecting the owner from his own dog?

There are mace products, tasers, and the owner being present, all of which may have dubdued the dog, which was also tethered to a leash.

I think the cops handled this situation poorly, which necessitated them to shoot the dog.

Once things get out of control, bullets start to fly.

The training should be geared to inhibit the loss of control, where large animals are involved.

Unless the owner of the dog was wielding a gun, or presenting an obvious, clear, & immediate danger to the police, cooler heads need to prevail.







__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
LindaGreesonRice

Avatar / Picture

Board Owner
Registered:
Posts: 7,867
Reply with quote  #4 
OMG - that was awful. I am beyond words..
__________________
Linda Greeson Rice
AKC Breeder of Merit

The Mastiff Sweet Spot
http://www.bluequaker.com/Mastiffs.htm



We do not breed often, but we do our best to breed top quality mastiffs
with excellent pedigrees to back them up. All breedings are carefully planned to produce
the very best mastiffs, sound in both body and mind, beautiful and strong,
representing the true mastiff standard.

We fully test our dogs. We believe that a person that "just wants a pet" has a right
to own a beautiful, well bred dog that is sound and healthy
every bit as much as someone wanting a "show dog".
Cindy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #5 
I stated that cops need better training. I didn't say they were at fault.
What better training to you think they needed for this situation?  What did the police do wrong?

Certainly the owner of the dog should have used better judgment during the encounter.
The owner could have made a choice to have stopped this before it ever started.  His dog died because of circumstances he initiated.

But, should he have left the dog in a hot car with the windows up?
He could have put the windows up enough to prevent the dog from  jumping out.  Better yet, he could have also got in the car and just left.

Should the cops have first told the man to secure the dog before placing him in cuffs?
The reason the man was put in cuffs was because he was preventing and  interferring in the police offers doing their job. This man was not listening to the cops...that was the problem!!!  What makes you think he would have listened to them if they told him to secure his dog? This man had a history:  
Quote:
 
Mr Rosby has previous convictions for resisting arrest, battery and driving under the influence.
Quote:

Did they need to justify the killing by saying they were protecting the owner from his own dog?
Yes, since the owner was handcuffed and defenseless, and the dog was lunging at various people by this point they did have to protect him.  But, I don't believe they even have to justify the killing as the dog was lunging at the officers, they tried to grab the dog's leash to restrain  it and the dog was trying to bit them; they also had to consider the  safety of the other people in the vicinity as the dog was now out of control.

There are mace products, tasers, and the owner being present, all of which may have dubdued the dog, which was also tethered to a leash.
Do we know for a fact that they had tasers with them?  And, now you want them to let the owner out of his handcuffs to deal with the dog?  It just doesn't work that way...and...let's not forget...THE POLICE  WERE NOT there for this man...THEY WERE THERE FOR AN ARMED ROBBERY SITUATION!

I think the cops handled this situation poorly, which necessitated them to shoot the dog.
I disagree...the Police Officers were there dealing with an armed robbery situation...this man was distracting them  (purposefully) from their job, and when told to desist, he did not.  This man could have saved his dogs life by following the officers orders and walking away.  He chose not to, and he did not secure his dog safely when he had the chance.

Once things get out of control, bullets start to fly.
Unfortunately this happens to often.  And, once again I say to you...if this man had been a responsible pet owner her would have never put his pet in this situations.  The poor judgement of this dog owner, plus the poor choice of not obeying the police cost the life of this dog.  The poor choices this man made were the cause of the dog's  life.
The training should be geared to inhibit the loss of control, where large animals are involved.
I am certainly not going to say more training is a bad thing, but I think in this case it would not have made much of a difference...unless you are talking about training the owner of the dog to be responsible and not put his dog in a situation like this.
Unless the owner of the dog was wielding a gun, or presenting an obvious, clear, & immediate danger to the police, cooler heads need to prevail.
What is it that you don't understand about them being there actively investigating an armed robbery situation?  The owner of the dog was distracting them enough that they could not proceed with their job....What if you were in that building a hostage of the armed robbers, waiting for the police to help you?  What if one of the police officers had lost their life by one of the armed robbers because they were distracted by this guy?  Is that a better ending for this story?  

This is really sad; I hate that the dog was shot.  But I think the onus is on  the owner.



__________________
Cindy
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #6 
Owners do stupid things, no doubt about that. Cops do stupid things as well.

Cops must be trained to compensate for distractions (see your comments above), without resorting to lethal force.

Some cops are more than happy to justify shooting a dog, especially if they feel there will be no consequences.

Not all cops are dog friendly, or savvy. Many react out of fear, even when alternative resolves are available.

If they intended to arrest the man with a large dog, they could have sent an officer to get the taser just in case it was needed.

If all attempts to control a dangerous situation fail, then lethal force can be justified.

If cops are not equipped properly, or trained in handling such situations, we can't keep placing all of the blame on the owner, even though he was a jerk.




__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
mekotessa

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 565
Reply with quote  #7 
Here is another good example. This is a story that I have been following for a while...

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019777053_rosie28m.html

__________________
~Sara
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #8 
Erika,

The breed is a guarding breed and reacted exactly as it should have reacted!

This was not a random attack!

The Rottweiler does not understand a cop from a civilian!

It saw it's master being manhandled by a group of others and did what a guard is bred to do!

This dog deserved an award!

That's a far cry from a dog that savages a child out of the blue!!!

In the still of the video you've provided above, we see a passive dog and a man just taking pictures on his phone.

Under such a scenario, there should have been other cops used to cordon off an area, preventing civilians from entering the perimeter of the crime scene.

The cops apparently failed to do that.

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #9 
It matters little to a child that's been mauled for life what the proper context may have been.

The bottom line, is that a dog was reactive, or over-reactive and if due to genetic causation, it should be addressed as such, instead of rationalizing it away.

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Cindy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #10 
The dog did nothing wrong; only pretty much what we all hope our dogs will do if we are threatened by others.  Could the police use more training in these type of situations?  Undoubtedly. This was an ugly scenario, but I still believe the whole situation could have  been avoided if the owner had any sense at all.   The police were there for a different reason,  and this man interfered.  He knew this could go south...which is why he put the dog in the car in the first place.  Unfortunately, he only took half measures.  If this man would have ceased and desisted like he was told to do none of the rest would have followed. The dog getting shot was ugly, and it broke my heart.  The dog was not shot because he  was running towards his owner...he was shot because he was lunging and snapping at the police officers. This was a crowded neighborhood, things could have escalated and got totally out of hand quickly...and, then, of course, we would be blaming the police for that too.

Steve and Erika....I think the two of you have an ongoing argument regarding these kind of situations and you are both passionate about your opinions.  Nothing wrong with that, I am the same.  My opinion is, bottom line, if owners truly took responsibility for their animals, a lot of these situations would never occur.  I am heart-broken that this dog had to die because of his owner's stupidity.

__________________
Cindy
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #11 
Cindy, certainly the owner has his hand in this mess. I've not denied that!

I'm trying to say, that police tactics are wanting in a number of situations that don't have to end in a fatality.

Bullets can ricochet and kill or injure a bystander. Discharging a firearm should not be cavalier, just because it's a dog.

Better training & education is needed for cops, in my view, concerning crowd control, or dog control, under tense situations.

When adrenaline is running high, it's too late to calmly reason proper action.

Tactics must be discussed at a desk and possible scenarios laid out for correct responses to prevent escalation.

Tranquilizer guns should be kept in police cars as standard equipment and tasers carried by at least several officers that arrive on a scene.

Preparation and foreknowledge goes a long way.

I've seen a Pit attack a cop, due to the owner telling the dog to attack the cop. The cop had no alternative but to shoot the dog.

The dog acted appropriately, even though it's master did not!

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Tracy

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,726
Reply with quote  #12 
I am going with Cindy on this one, if not for the actions of the owner the dog would be alive today. He chose to interfere with law enforcement. There comes a point in time when we all have to start accepting responsibility for our own actions. we live in a digital age, and what he was doing was videoing the robbery, and subsequent removal of those home invasion robbers from the house, but he was doing it with his dog on the end of a long leash. Most of the action was over, and he was approached by police, he put the dog in the car with the windows down, Why was he there with the dog in the first place? Did he drive there to video this encounter, why was the car there??
If he hadnt put himself in the middle of the action with his dog there, the outcome would not have been the same.
I don't blame the rottie, owned them for years, he was protecting his master, as inherent in the breed, a shame he had to pay for it with his life because his owner thought more of his own intentions than protecting the life of a dog who was willing to protect him at any cost.  I know my own Rotties have protected me and saved my life on a couple of occasions, and I would never dream of placing them in a situation where the action was unnecessary!!

__________________
Ranchlands Mastiffs http://www.ranchlandsmastiffs.com Member MCOA, SSMF, FAME Rescue Volunteer SSMR If you dont rescue, Dont Breed. We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein Ch Sherwood Ranchlands Friar Tuck Ch ( In heaven) Windypines Sir Reginald Montgomery ( in heaven) National and Internation and sooo close Ch Ranchlands Duecs Wild ( In heaven) Windy Pines Mid-night Maxi ( In Heaven) Pallone Ranchlands Diamond Lil ( In Heaven) Winsomes Ranchlands Maid Marion GrCh. Ranchlands Windimup and Watchimgo Ranchlands Amazing Grace Ranchlands Kissed By An Angel Ranchlands And The Beat Goes on' Ranchlands Truly Scrumptious Ranchlands Rumor Has It Sylvans My Cherie D"Amour at Ranchlands. Ranchlands Bring on the Big Guns
GinaG

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 3,433
Reply with quote  #13 
Police put their lives on the line everyday and have to put up with criminals, vicious dogs, ETC...None of us were there when this happened, it always seems to turn into a bad cop "syndrome". I don't know exactly what the circumstances were, and now there is a dead dog and a possible lawsuit. Sadly, all involved are in trouble and whatever the outcome, no lesson was learned. Just another day in the lives of the cops who are supposed to be out to protect and maintain order...sure is a thankless job sometimes.
Gina

__________________
gina anelli
Cindy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
I don't know details, but apparently the owner had sued this PD in the past for brutality / unlawful arrest / etc and he was out on the street as a "witness". I think the PD is going to have a hard time maintaining he was "interfering" and now with the dead dog, they are going to have to prove that in court as we all know this will be one big law suit.


Quote:
 Mr Rosby has previous convictions for resisting arrest, battery and driving under the influence.


Not sure of your sources  Erika, but I don't believe this man was so innocent.  He has actually sued the police department for "racial discrimination" in the past, and one of the things it was reported that he was harassing the officers about was the "lack of black cops"  at this crime scene.  And, Erika, it was a crime scene, and this man was interfering with the police doing their job.  Evidently, from what you are saying the man put other  issues in front of his dog's safety.  Is that what you would have done?

__________________
Cindy
Jessdawn

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 176
Reply with quote  #15 
I don't post her often, but I had to post on this one. I'm with Cindy 100%, this is all over Facebook. I was told today by someone that the dog only jumped out of the car and Attacked because one of the cops hit his owner with a gun? I never saw them hit this guy, they were patting him down. I also read the cops should have used Tranquilizers on the dog? I don't think they carry that they don't even all have Tasers. I know cops walk a fine line, In Del City Oklahoma a police man and his K-9 went on an alarm call, K-9 went in first, there was a Great Dane in the house. Police man said the GD attacked his K-9 so he shot and killed it. Home owners came home to their dog dead in the driveway. City took the dogs body and threw it in a dumpster. I know this because the Animal control agent told me about it the next day. I think this man loved his dog but he is the reason his dog is dead.    
dixierockstarr

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 955
Reply with quote  #16 
How can people even watch this? I almost puked! Both sides were in the wrong.
__________________
Christin :)
Member MCOA
Mom to Bravo son of
Intl Ch Dixie Rockstarr (RIP baby),
Fiona our pound puppy,
Chloe our kitty,
And 3 handsome gentlemen Brockton, Christopher and Jordan
Cindy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #17 
How can people even watch this? I almost puked! Both sides were in the wrong.
/QUOTE]

I almost did puke.  I cried, and held my dog tight. The only reason I finally watched the video this morning that Erika put up was that I felt if I was going to have an opinion and express it, I needed to be as informed as possible regarding what I was talking about.  It was awful and ugly...I have had rotties in the past, and I think they are wonderful dogs, and watching that video was heartbreaking.  And, if the owner had used his head, and thought about his dog's  welfare, he would have taken one look at the scene and  left. Why did he park his car, get out with his  dog, and proceed to interfere in a crime scene situation?  Why was it so important for him to do this?  He didn't just happen upon the scene when he was taking a walk with his dog;  he  chose to park his car, get out with his dog, etc.  It is a lot easier for us in retrospect, with the luxury of time and thinking things through to state what the officers should have done.  Unfortunately, police officers do not always have the luxury of time to make their decisions; they do the best they can...hopefully.  And, like Steve stated, more training in these type of situations would be to the benefit of all.
 I am sick  that this happened.  I think everyone involved probably wishes they could go back and do something different that might have changed the outcome.  I wish that people that owned dogs would take responsibility for their dogs, and realize that in today's world if you are going to own a dog like this that it is your responsibility to protect your dog and not involve it  in these kind of situations.  I say again, this dog did nothing wrong.  This owner  did everything wrong;  he let his dog down in the ultimate way.

__________________
Cindy
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #18 

 

Quote:

Once the suspected robber was in custody, police officers walked toward Rosby to arrest him for interfering in their operation.

Officers motioned to Rosby to put the dog in his car. Rosby complied and then walked toward the officers, put his hands behind his back and prepared to be arrested.



This occurred AFTER the robber was in custody, not during the robbery.

The dog was tethered and not roaming freely about.

The officers should have controlled the situation by making sure the dog was securely contained BEFORE placing the man in cuffs.

The owner was not wielding a weapon, or threatening the police, he was compliant other than lowering the radio.

Police have to compensate for stupid owners of dogs, unless totally unavoidable. The police are supposed to know better than a jerk and not compound the actions of a jerk!

In this case, it did not have to end in a fatality.

Crime scenes in progress are typically sectioned off to protect the public. The cops failed to secure the perimeter and then acted without good judgment AFTER the robber was in custody!




 


__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Cindy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #19 
The dog was NOT tethered; it was in a car with open windows.  Why do you keep changing the facts?  Bottom line Steve....Who do you really think is at fault here; the police officers or the dog owner?
__________________
Cindy
Cindy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
In this case, it did not have end in a fatality.


You're absolutely correct;  if this owner hadn't pursued his own agenda, to the detriment of his dog, his dog would still be alive.

__________________
Cindy
Cindy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #21 
Quote:
The officers should have controlled the situation by making sure the dog was securely contained BEFORE placing the man in cuffs.


This was not the owner's  responsibility?  The officers were not up level with the car; maybe they thought since the owner put the dog in the car that  the windows were up enough to prevent  the dog from jumping out??  Why do you make this everyone's responsibility except for the owner?  This is why there is such a problem...Owners do not take responsibility for their dogs!!!  So, when something bad happens because of that, it becomes everyone else's fault??  It's always easy to sit in judgement of people that take actions we find undesirable, especially when afforded the luxury of time and looking at the problem and "having time to think" about what we think might have been the correct action to have taken.

We can project a lot of different outcomes for this situation, however, we were not there and involved.  
If the owner would have just taken the responsible action his dog would still be alive.  It's that simple when you ignore all the other stuff thrown in.  And, until owners do take responsibility for their dogs, and are held  accountable, we will continue to see this same scenario played out over and over.

__________________
Cindy
Cindy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
WAY too many dogs shot by cops these days.


I agree 100% with this Erika; way, way too many.  It angers and sickens me.  But, instead of lashing out at who most will perceive as the "offender" why is it that we don't hold the  owner responsible for putting their dogs in these situations?  Why is that?  Why is it always someone elses fault?  Who bears the responsibility of a dog?  The owner, or someone else?


Thank you for removing the video.  It is disturbing as hell and just as heartbreaking;  and, like you said, it is already all over the place.

__________________
Cindy
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
The dog was NOT tethered; it was in a car with open windows.  Why do you keep changing the facts?  Bottom line Steve....Who do you really think is at fault here; the police officers or the dog owner?



The dog was on a leash and in the control of it's owner. Therefore, it was tethered and not running free.

The cops needed to insure that the dog was firmly secured and not placed in a car with windows open, so that the dog could jump out. This is negligence on the part of the police, since the owner is about to be arrested and may be nervous with the police shouting lots of orders at him.

If the area was secured by the police and cordoned off properly, there would not have been a need for an arrest. So once again, negligence on the part of the police.

The actions of the police could have cause the dog to injure a child, since they did not secure the dog. What would have occurred if the dog just ran off and hurt a child?

More negligence!  If cops see a powerful dog and not a Pomeranian, they need to be trained to secure such a breed properly unless they are directly under attack from the start of the encounter. In this case, the police were negligent.

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #24 
As far as fault goes, if some jumper is about to throw himself off a building, the cops are supposed to prevent people from walking under the building so they don't get hurt by the jumper. If they fail to do so, the cops are negligent, even though the jumper is the one instigating the action.

In this case, the owner of the Rottie is the instigator, but the police failed to secure the area in order to prevent further damage to themselves, or others. Perhaps he might not even have been seen as an instigator, if the area was secured before the police action took place.

There are certainly grey areas on both sides of this debate, but the cops did not walk into a shootout, this was a controlled event that went out of control, due to negligence.

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Cindy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #25 
The dog was on a leash and in control of it's owner. Therefore, it was tethered and not running free.

Seriously Steve????  On a leash...control of the owner?  How was the owner in control of the dog when the dog was in the car with the windows rolled down and the owner not even in proximity of the leash?


The cops needed to insure that the dog was firmly secured and not placed in a car with windows open, so that the dog could jump out. This is negligence on the part of the police, since the owner is about to be arrested and may be nervous with the police shouting lots of orders at him.

I guess you have one singular view of this episode and how it all went down; and from the above statement you seem to hold the police responsible for this whole situation...not the fault at all of the owner?  Yet before this you stated:


Quote:
I stated that cops need better training. I didn't say they were at fault.


Quote:
Certainly the owner of the dog should have used better judgment during the encounter.



If the area was secured by the police and cordoned off properly, there would not have been a need for an arrest. So once again, negligence on the part of the police.


You know this for sure?  You are so sure that if the area had been cordoned off the owner of the dog would not have taken the same actions?  I think you are either being naive, or just making argument for arguments sake.

The actions of the police could have cause the dog to injure a child, since they did not secure the dog. What would have occurred if the dog just ran off and hurt a child?

EXACTLY STEVE!!!!  But...why would this have been the officers fault?  Why not the fault of the owner who did not secure his dog properly?????

More negligence!  If cops see a powerful dog and not a Pomeranian, they need to be trained to secure such a breed properly unless they are directly under attacvk from the start of the encounter. In this case, the police were negligent.


I do not want to argue anymore.  I am just saying the same things over and over, and for what it's worth, I am just stating my opinion.  I do agree with you Steve that the police could use more training.  And, Erika I also agree with you that way, way too many dogs are shot by officers.  I wish I had an easy answer; but I don't.  I do believe though that the first step to solving this problem is for owners to take responsibility for their dogs, and to be held accountable for their responsibility.  JMHO.

__________________
Cindy
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #26 
Cindy,

I guess you're not properly interpreting what I'm saying.

Once more, there are grey areas in this issue and both sides are culpable.

My argument reflects the side that is supposed to be trained in handling issues such as this and in not dropping the ball.

Once the dog is no longer properly secured (i.e. windows down and not restrained from jumping out of the car) who gets blamed?

You believe it should be the owner, I believe the majority of the burden falls on the police, since it is their responsibility to protect the public. That responsibility should not be left up to the owner, especially when the owner is about to be arrested and he has a 100 pound guard dog in tow.

If the area was cordoned off, the owner would not have had the ability to take pictures of the crime scene. If the robber had a gun and if the owner is in line of sight to take pictures, it means he is also in the line of sight of a robber with a gun. The police are supposed to reduce such potential harm to others and in this instance it was not done.

Therefore, there is negligence on the part of the police.

Had the police just packed up the robber and left, there would have been no further issue, but for some reason, the police decided to go for this guy with the camera. Perhaps the cops feared what was recorded on the camera, who knows, but the cops escalated the tensions and a lack of better judgment resulted in a smoking gun.

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Cindy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #27 
And I do want to add that the shoot first ask later attitude of many cops towards dogs is nurtured, fostered, and made to seem rational by sensationalizing stories and tales of crazed dogs that can not be controlled (and so, of course, must be shot). Go read about the dogs shot by cops on FB, most of them are called pit bulls, regardless of what they look like. Why ? Because it is OK TO SHOOT PITBULLS !!

It always evolves to this when you and Steve are involved in a discussion like this.  "Pit Bulls".  For me, NO...I am not in favor of shooting ANY kind of dog if it can be avoided.  Erika, who is truly at fault for "the sensationalizing stories and tales of crazed dogs that can not be controlled"?  How do people/public get a toehold in this scenario?  It is almost always because the owners of these dogs did not take responsibility and handle their dogs in the appropriate way.

 I use to take my grandson and my  Corso to the park together, and we always had a lot of fun.  But, because of the irresponsibility of other dog owners I had to give this up...because I was not willing to put my dog in a situation that  could end badly for her.  Finally, after the last incident, I had to give up this outing. Almost every time we went I ended up having to decide who to protect...my grandson or my dog because for some reason there are many  pet owners that take  their dog to a "leashed" only park and decide they are exempt from that leash rule.  My grandson and my dog and I were playing in the empty baseball park one day and all of a sudden I heard this barking and looked up and saw a full grown large dog barreling straight at us.  I had no choice but to let go of my dogs leash and run to pick up my  2 1/2 year old grandson and protect him by holding him and turning my back on a dog charging me to protect him.  I was helpless in this situation, and it was not my fault or my choosing.  The owner, was just sauntering along quite unconcerned...both hands full, one with a cell phone he was talking on, the other holding a soda.  Did I blame the other dog; no, it was the dog's owner at fault. Was this fair to me?  No.  But, I also realized by then that I could not control other dogs and their owners.  I could only control myself and my dog; that is my responsibility, no one elses.  

This whole situation we have been talking about is not fair; especially to the dog that died so horribly.  Why can't you/choose not to, realize it all could have been avoided if the owner had acted responsibly and not put his dog in that situation?  This is not about Pit Bulls; it is about people owning dogs and refusing to act responsibly in situations regarding them.




__________________
Cindy
Cindy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #28 
I guess you're not properly interpreting what I'm saying.

Because I disagree with you does not mean I am not "properly" interpreting what you are saying.

Once more, there are grey areas in this issue and both sides are culpable.

For sure I am not always right, but, and this is my opinion....there would never have been 2 sides to this situation if the owner had just acted appropriately regarding his dog in the first place.  If he felt what he was doing was so important...more important than his dog, then he should have driven the dog home, secured it, and then gone back to harass the police and interfere with what they were there for in the first place.  JMO


My argument reflects the side that is supposed to be trained in handling issues such as this and in not dropping the ball.

I understand what you are saying,  but once again, if the owner would have been responsible this situation would have never escalated to what the outcome was.  I do agree that police/any kind of law enforcement would benefit was additional training when it comes to these type of situations.


Once the dog is no longer properly secured (i.e. windows down and not restrained from jumping out of the car) who gets blamed?

I believe the responsiblity should lie with the person who should have been accountable for properly securing their dog in the first place, the one who decided his own agenda was more important than doing this.


You believe it should be the owner, I believe the majority of the burden falls on the police, since it is their responsibility to protect the public. That responsibility should not be left up to the owner, especially when the owner is about to be arrested and he has a 100 pound guard dog in tow.

I believe this kind of thinking is what leads to these kind of situations.  It is not a "right" in this country to own a dog to the detriment of others.  When we choose to get a dog, we are choosing the "responsibility" of owning this dog, and that includes ensuring other's safety  around the dog.  If the owner had done the responsible thing at the beginning, then you would not have had to write the above paragraph.  You are correct...I do believe it was the owner's responsibility, and I think by you arguing against it you are just perpetuating these types of scenarios continuing to happen.  JMO.

If the area was cordoned off, the owner would not have had the ability to take pictures of the crime scene. If the robber had a gun and if the owner is in line of sight to take pictures, it means he is also in the line of sight of a robber with a gun. The police are supposed to reduce such potential harm to others and in this instance it was not done.

If, if, if.  The big IF is....IF THE OWNER HAD ACTED RESPONSIBLY TOWARDS HIS DOG IN THE FIRST CASE, NONE OF THE REST WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.  Quit it...It is people voicing these sentiments that allow others NOT TO BE RESPONSIBLE!!


Therefore, there is negligence on the part of the police.

I totally disagree.


Had the police just packed up the robber and left, there would have been no further issue, but for some reason, the police decided to go for this guy with the camera. Perhaps the cops feared what was recorded on the camera, who knows, but the cops escalated the tensions and a lack of better judgment resulted in a smoking gun.

Had the owner just done the right thing, once again you would not have had to write the above paragraph.


I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree Steve;  we are both stating our personal opinions.  

__________________
Cindy
Steph

Registered:
Posts: 911
Reply with quote  #29 
Steve,

Have you EVER been a Police Officer is situations such as this? Opinions are like assholes, we all have one. BUT, until YOU are there and in that situation, do not condemn these Officers. I have several friends and relatives who are First Responders and put their lives out there for you and me and idiots like the owner. I can see the Officers perspective.

__________________
“Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of other's opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”
Steve Jobs
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #30 
Steph, I have not condemned the officers for needing to shoot. I've commented on what led up to that need!

I've been around cops most of my adult life and my potential future son-in-law is on the job as we speak!

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #31 
I guess you're not properly interpreting what I'm saying.

Because I disagree with you does not mean I am not "properly" interpreting what you are saying.

Cindy, I don't care if you disagree with me, but you aren't absorbing what I've stated based on your responses.


Once more, there are grey areas in this issue and both sides are culpable.

For sure I am not always right, but, and this is my opinion....there would never have been 2 sides to this situation if the owner had just acted appropriately regarding his dog in the first place.  If he felt what he was doing was so important...more important than his dog, then he should have driven the dog home, secured it, and then gone back to harass the police and interfere with what they were there for in the first place.  JMO

As stated earlier, the owner has his share of responsibility in this debacle. That does not negate the police mishandling the situation.


My argument reflects the side that is supposed to be trained in handling issues such as this and in not dropping the ball.

I understand what you are saying,  but once again, if the owner would have been responsible this situation would have never escalated to what the outcome was.  I do agree that police/any kind of law enforcement would benefit was additional training when it comes to these type of situations.

Police have to deal with situations that are not ideal. You can't always blame the victim for their stupidity in walking down a dark street in a bad neighborhood! The dog's owner felt he had a right to be there, since the police did not form a perimeter barrier beforehand.


Once the dog is no longer properly secured (i.e. windows down and not restrained from jumping out of the car) who gets blamed?

I believe the responsiblity should lie with the person who should have been accountable for properly securing their dog in the first place, the one who decided his own agenda was more important than doing this.

He didn't know the cops would be going after him, so why did he need to prepare? He didn't rob the home!



You believe it should be the owner, I believe the majority of the burden falls on the police, since it is their responsibility to protect the public. That responsibility should not be left up to the owner, especially when the owner is about to be arrested and he has a 100 pound guard dog in tow.

I believe this kind of thinking is what leads to these kind of situations.  It is not a "right" in this country to own a dog to the detriment of others.  When we choose to get a dog, we are choosing the "responsibility" of owning this dog, and that includes ensuring other's safety  around the dog.  If the owner had done the responsible thing at the beginning, then you would not have had to write the above paragraph.  You are correct...I do believe it was the owner's responsibility, and I think by you arguing against it you are just perpetuating these types of scenarios continuing to happen.  JMO.

As stated, the owner has a share in this situation, but to place the whole burden on the owner and ignore the negligence on the part of the police is incorrect in my view. There was no detriment to others UNTIL the cops stepped in!

If the area was cordoned off, the owner would not have had the ability to take pictures of the crime scene. If the robber had a gun and if the owner is in line of sight to take pictures, it means he is also in the line of sight of a robber with a gun. The police are supposed to reduce such potential harm to others and in this instance it was not done.

If, if, if.  The big IF is....IF THE OWNER HAD ACTED RESPONSIBLY TOWARDS HIS DOG IN THE FIRST CASE, NONE OF THE REST WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.  Quit it...It is people voicing these sentiments that allow others NOT TO BE RESPONSIBLE!!

You say if the owner was more responsible, but I'm not allowed to say if the cops were more responsible?


Therefore, there is negligence on the part of the police.

I totally disagree.

That is your prerogative!



Had the police just packed up the robber and left, there would have been no further issue, but for some reason, the police decided to go for this guy with the camera. Perhaps the cops feared what was recorded on the camera, who knows, but the cops escalated the tensions and a lack of better judgment resulted in a smoking gun.

Had the owner just done the right thing, once again you would not have had to write the above paragraph.

What specifically did the owner do wrong prior to the dog being placed into the car? Are citizens supposed to hide when police arrive?

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree Steve;  we are both stating our personal opinions.  

Correct! But there is one dead Rottweiler, which could have still been alive had the cops handled the situation better. The owner didn't shoot his own dog, the cops did!

Who knows what the right thing is?

Look, my son almost worked in the WTC. Should I have told him not to work there, because the building was a target? Should that guilt fall on those who lost loved ones at the WTC, because they didn't take responsibility in warning their loved ones of the potential danger?
The WTC deaths are shared by the terrorists and those in law enforcement who failed the system!
The owner of this dog didn't know that he, or his dog, was going to be in harms way. All he did was take pictures, he didn't set his dog on the cops. The cops decided to target the dog's owner. Why? Did he pose such a problem?
Knowing he had a guarding breed, they should have been trained to handle the situation with better judgment. Instead, they knee-jerked their response without proper preparation.
Assumption, is the mother of all screw-ups! The cops assumed too much, or they were negligent in following up on the security of the dog. In either case, it was not handled well, to say the least!
__________________

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Cindy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #32 
I guess you're not properly interpreting what I'm saying.

Because I disagree with you does not mean I am not "properly" interpreting what you are saying.

Cindy, I don't care if you disagree with me, but you aren't absorbing what I've stated based on your responses.
 
I am absorbing it Steve;  I am just not buying or agreeing with it.  I have already said numerous times that additional training for police officers/law enforcement would be beneficial to all.  You are approaching this scenario from what happened....I am approaching it from the standpoint of what we could do to keep it from happening.
 

Once more, there are grey areas in this issue and both sides are culpable.

For sure I am not always right, but, and this is my opinion....there would never have been 2 sides to this situation if the owner had just acted appropriately regarding his dog in the first place.  If he felt what he was doing was so important...more important than his dog, then he should have driven the dog home, secured it, and then gone back to harass the police and interfere with what they were there for in the first place.  JMO

As stated earlier, the owner has his share of responsibility in this debacle. That does not negate the police mishandling the situation.


My argument reflects the side that is supposed to be trained in handling issues such as this and in not dropping the ball.

I understand what you are saying,  but once again, if the owner would have been responsible this situation would have never escalated to what the outcome was.  I do agree that police/any kind of law enforcement would benefit was additional training when it comes to these type of situations.

Police have to deal with situations that are not ideal. You can't always blame the victim for their stupidity in walking down a dark street in a bad neighborhood! The dog's owner felt he had a right to be there, since the police did not form a perimeter barrier beforehand.

I never blamed the victim....the dog.  I blamed the owner.

Once the dog is no longer properly secured (i.e. windows down and not restrained from jumping out of the car) who gets blamed? 

I believe the responsiblity should lie with the person who should have been accountable for properly securing their dog in the first place, the one who decided his own agenda was more important than doing this.

He didn't know the cops would be going after him, so why did he need to prepare? He didn't rob the home!
 
Sure he knew Steve...why else did he go put the dog in the car in the  first place?  He walked right back to the officers and turned his back to them and presented his hands to be handcuffed.  This type of scenario was not new to him.  Stop acting like this man had no idea what was going on....he set this whole scenario in play;  he just never thought far enough ahead to see the possible outcome would be the loss of his dog...because he  was more concerned with his own agenda.



You believe it should be the owner, I believe the majority of the burden falls on the police, since it is their responsibility to protect the public. That responsibility should not be left up to the owner, especially when the owner is about to be arrested and he has a 100 pound guard dog in tow.

I believe this kind of thinking is what leads to these kind of situations.  It is not a "right" in this country to own a dog to the detriment of others.  When we choose to get a dog, we are choosing the "responsibility" of owning this dog, and that includes ensuring other's safety  around the dog.  If the owner had done the responsible thing at the beginning, then you would not have had to write the above paragraph.  You are correct...I do believe it was the owner's responsibility, and I think by you arguing against it you are just perpetuating these types of scenarios continuing to happen.  JMO.

As stated, the owner has a share in this situation, but to place the whole burden on the owner and ignore the negligence on the part of the police is incorrect in my view. There was no detriment to others UNTIL the cops stepped in!
 
I already addressed this point.   The solution I am interested in would keep these type of situations from hopefully ever occurring. 

If the area was cordoned off, the owner would not have had the ability to take pictures of the crime scene. If the robber had a gun and if the owner is in line of sight to take pictures, it means he is also in the line of sight of a robber with a gun. The police are supposed to reduce such potential harm to others and in this instance it was not done.

If, if, if.  The big IF is....IF THE OWNER HAD ACTED RESPONSIBLY TOWARDS HIS DOG IN THE FIRST CASE, NONE OF THE REST WOULD HAVE HAPPENED.  Quit it...It is people voicing these sentiments that allow others NOT TO BE RESPONSIBLE!!

You say if the owner was more responsible, but I'm not allowed to say if the cops were more responsible?

Of course not; you are allowed to say whatever you choose and believe.  I am sorry if I worded my previous response suggesting otherwise.
Therefore, there is negligence on the part of the police.

I totally disagree.

That is your prerogative! 

Thank you.

Had the police just packed up the robber and left, there would have been no further issue, but for some reason, the police decided to go for this guy with the camera. Perhaps the cops feared what was recorded on the camera, who knows, but the cops escalated the tensions and a lack of better judgment resulted in a smoking gun.

Had the owner just done the right thing, once again you would not have had to write the above paragraph.

What specifically did the owner do wrong prior to the dog being placed into the car? Are citizens supposed to hide when police arrive?
No, but do you honestly think someone should bother police while there are busy with something else so important?  Would a reasonable person have done what this man did?  Why didn't this man respond to the police officers directives in a timely fashion?  What made this man so special that he didn't have to?

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree Steve;  we are both stating our personal opinions.  

Correct! But there is one dead Rottweiler, which could have still been alive had the cops handled the situation better. The owner didn't shoot his own dog, the cops did!
You are absolutely correct Steve; the cops did shoot the dog.  Does it matter at all that the dog...a powerful dog, was lunging and snapping at them?  Should they have waited until the dog actually attacked?

Who knows what the right thing is?
I know what I think is  the answer, and I understand what you think the answer to be is. I surely hope there can be more of a coming together on common ground to prevent situations like this from continuing to occur.

Look, my son almost worked in the WTC. Should I have told him not to work there, because the building was a target? Should that guilt fall on those who lost loved ones at the WTC, because they didn't take responsibility in warning their loved ones of the potential danger?
The WTC deaths are shared by the terrorists and those in law enforcementwho failed the system!
The owner of this dog didn't know he, or his dog, was going to be in harms way. All he did was take pictures, he didn't set his dog on the cops. The cops decided to target the dog's owner. Why? Did he pose such a problem? 
Knowing he had a guarding breed, they should have been trained to handle the situation with better judgment. Instead, they knee-jerked their response without proper preparation. 
Assumption, is the mother of all screw-ups! The cops assumed too much, or they were negligent in following up on the security of the dog. In either case, it was not handled well, to say the least!
I am not going to comment on the above.  I feel...just my opinion, so neither right or wrong, that by bringing the whole WTC into this argument is like 2 people who can't agree during an argument, so they bring the "whole kitchen sink" into it.  I feel you are changing tactics because I have not converted to your conclusions.  It's ok, and I apologize in advance if I'm wrong about your motives.  This whole situation is sad and ugly....what do you suggest we do in the future to avoid it?


__________________
Cindy
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #33 
Quote:
what do you suggest we do in the future to avoid it?


Analyze the components that attribute to the issues.

If we unilaterally target just one component (the owner) we do reality a disservice!

There will always be jerks in the system, cops must accommodate for these individuals.

There was no urgency to arrest this person, it could have been delayed until the animal was secured in a safe enclosure.

In high speed car chases, cops are being told to break off pursuit at times, when the general public might be placed in danger by the pursuit.

This person was not presenting an imminent threat to the public, or the cops.

The police created the need for the shooting, by not doing what they should have done, despite the jerk who owned the dog.

The cops overplayed their hand in this case, regardless of any priors in this person's record.



__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
kcornel4

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 959
Reply with quote  #34 
I have not before commented on this tragic event as I did not want to contribute to the discussion whilst in an emotional state. Here are my views.

I agree that blame can and should be apportioned to both ‘sides’. However, despite the extremely poor judgment and errors on Rosby’s part, the police were the professionals equipped with weapons, and given the authority to make a decision to employ deadly force. With such power comes great responsibility.

I think it is a very valid and relevant question as to why the scene was not cordoned off or blockaded, and all citizens in the vicinity evacuated. I looked through a number of police department protocols for managing incidents where a potentially armed and dangerous suspect had barricaded themselves in a house or building, refusing to comply with police orders to come out. All the protocols required an officer – often the Patrol Sergeant – to ‘establish a perimeter’ and not allow civilians or unauthorized vehicles within the perimeter. Most also called for the evacuation of bystanders and occupants of nearby buildings. Here is a typical example:

Index Code: 2308

Effective Date: 11-18-09

Anne Arundel County Police Department Written Directive 3

.IV. PATROL SERGEANT

A. Establish a perimeter around the area of the barricaded location, utilizing cover for protection from hostile fire/threat. Citizens and unauthorized vehicles will not be allowed within this perimeter.

B. Evaluate evacuation needs as they apply to:

* Injured persons

* Occupants of neighboring buildings

* Bystanders

1. Establish a list documenting the evacuation efforts of affected buildings/residences.

2. Request any equipment or additional personnel needed to effect the evacuations.

3. Provide a copy of the list to incoming Special Operations Section supervisors and brief them on the status of

the evacuation.

4. Provide the location of each officer positioned on the perimeter to the Special Operations Section supervisor

and account for their presence upon completion of the incident.

C. Ensure that all personnel maintain firearms discipline.

D. Designate a staging area at a safe location to which additional units can respond, and inform Communications

of its location. The staging location should be as close as possible, but out of sight of the barricade location.

E. Arrange to hold any witnesses in a safe area for identification and debriefing by detectives.

F. Gather available intelligence on barricade location (i.e., diagram, obstacles, signs of children and pets).

 

Hence, imo, EITHER police failed to adhere to standard protocol – (which was at the very least negligence that ultimately endangered bystanders, and possibly dereliction of duty); OR the scenario was not as risky as it was depicted.

 Excerpt from Police Chief magazine, June 2013 issue about the police function’s responsibility in managing risk.

Renowned lawman, lawyer, and annual IACP conference presenter Gordon Graham travels the country speaking about what managing risk entails in law enforcement circles.1 He uses a succinct definition for risk management, describing it as “any activity that involves the action.”2. He has several risk management catch phrases applicable to law enforcement, such as “every identifiable risk is a manageable risk”; “the errors that he will make can be predicted from the errors he has made”; “things that go wrong in life are predictable, and predictable is preventable”; and “discipline is a form of training.”evaluation or comparison of risks and the development, selection, and implementation of control measures that change, reduce, or eliminate the probability or the consequences of a harmful

Finally, as is often the case, there is broader context for the behaviour of both Rosby and the police. As has been mentioned in several accounts, Rosby is suing the Hawthorn Police Dept. The Times reports this account of Rosby’s attourney:

Gulden told The Times that police were retaliating against Rosby for a lawsuit filed in March against the department, alleging excessive use of force and false imprisonment in a July 2012 incident. He said Rosby pleaded guilty 20 years ago to possession of a controlled substance.According to the lawsuit’s complaint, officers beat Rosby at his home and in jail after responding to a domestic quarrel call made by Rosby’s wife. All charges against Rosby, 52, stemming from last year’s incident were dropped, Gulden said, calling the argument between the couple that prompted the call a "misunderstanding."

The actual details of the Rosby’s complaint are available on-line with supportive documentation. It makes for harrowing reading.

Additionally, some of the same officers involved in the dog incident were involved in a 2006 incident that involved allegations of police brutality, excessive force, and which the department settled out of court for one million dollars.

In the case of Goodrow vs Hawthorne, Officer X was one of seven Hawthorne Police Department officers charged with alleged deprivation of civil rights resulting from excessive force, denial of medical treatment and malicious prosecution, stemming from an incident that occurred at a party on July 21, 2006.

Hawthorne Police Department settled the lawsuit for one million dollars in case CV-07-5253 (VBV) on the eve of the trail on US District Court, Central District of California, the Honorable Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank presiding. Here is a detailed account:

Los Angeles, CA (PRWEB) February 1, 2009

The Hawthorne Police Department paid One Million Dollars to a Settle Lawsuit in which it was alleged a man was kicked in the face while handcuffed and then falsely prosecuted along with his wife to cover up the brutality. Evidence the plaintiffs were prepared to present at trial included a photograph of an officer appearing to kick the handcuffed plaintiff in the face and a surveillance video allegedly depicting officers high-fiving each other as the injured plaintiff suffered from a broken jaw.

After approval by the City Council, Hawthorne paid $1,000,000, (one million dollars) to settle Goodrow v. Hawthorne Police Department, Case No. CV- 07-5253 (VBV), on the eve of trial in United States District Court, Central District of California, the Honorable Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank presiding.    

The plaintiffs Anthony Goodrow and Karla Henriquez Goodrow sued the Hawthorne Police Officers for alleged deprivation of their civil rights resulting from excessive force, denial of medical treatment and malicious prosecution, stemming from an incident that occurred at a party on July 21, 2006.

On July 21, 2006, the Hawthorne Police Department received a loud noise complaint. Plaintiffs contend that in shutting down the party, officers beat plaintiff Anthony Goodrow, handcuffed him and then continued to beat him. It was further alleged that while Mr. Goodrow was handcuffed and face down on the cement, an Officer kicked Mr. Goodrow in the face breaking his jaw. Mr. Goodrow alleged he was arrested and taken to the jail instead of the hospital causing a delay in medical treatment. The wife of Mr. Goodrow, Karla Henriquez Goodrow, alleged she witnessed part of the beating and screamed for officers to stop. She alleged they arrested her and falsely charged her with public intoxication.

The Goodrows were then prosecuted in criminal court. Ultimately the criminal charges against Mr. Goodrow were dismissed. The case against Mrs. Goodrow proceeded to trial and she was acquitted. After the acquittal the Goodrows filed a federal lawsuit against the officers for deprivation of civil rights, excessive force, malicious prosecution and denial of medical treatment.

A follow-up in the LA Times:

Hawthorne officers accused of abuse weren't questioned during internal probe

Police personnel, including the chief's son, accused of breaking man's jaw during arrest were never interviewed during the internal affairs query. Victims and witnesses weren't called either.

February 13, 2009 |Richard Winton and Jack Leonard

After Anthony Goodrow complained that he had been brutalized by Hawthorne police officers during an arrest nearly three years ago, department officials said they "conducted an in-depth and thorough internal investigation."

Their conclusion: Officers acted appropriately and did not use excessive force.That finding, however, appears at odds with the city's payment of $1 million in late January to settle Goodrow's lawsuit alleging excessive force.

Evidence in the case included a photograph that Goodrow's attorneys say shows an officer about to kick their client in the face; a police video of officers slapping high-fives while an injured Goodrow was booked into the city's jail; and reports from the officers acknowledging that they punched and kicked Goodrow several times during the arrest.

A Times review of records in the lawsuit found that internal affairs investigators never interviewed Goodrow nor the officers involved, one of whom was the police chief's son.

Goodrow's attorneys say internal affairs also failed to contact several witnesses who bolstered their client's claim that he was kicked in the face so hard that his jaw was broken.

Experts on police misconduct investigations said Hawthorne's probe fell far short of how other law enforcement agencies handle similar complaints. At many departments, they said, it is standard practice to interview officers accused of misconduct, and agencies will order officers to cooperate if need be.

"There is really no excuse for not doing it," said Merrick Bobb, a Los Angeles-based attorney and national expert on police practices.

In 1991, the city also paid one million dollars to the family of a man whose family claimed they shot him in retaliation for previously attacking police officers. Police officers maintained that they were being attacked when they fired at him.

Given all of this history, to me it is small wonder  Rosby and other citizens were out videoing  police actions in this latest event (which happened in Rosby’s neighborhood) in the hopes of preventing or capturing a record of any police misconduct.

I really think Steve's suggestion of additional training in managing potential dangerous dogs (and I would add, canine psychology) would be helpful in general. Some police departments have instituted it. However, from what I've read, this department needs a lot more intervention than that.

 

 

 

 


__________________
Karen
kcornel4

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 959
Reply with quote  #35 
Additionally, for people interested in such things, here is a link to an interesting article in the June, 2012 issue of Police Chief Magazine. This article explains that most police officers are "good, ethical, and caring people (who) do in fact enter law enforcement because they want to make a positive difference in their communities. Officers frequently espouse strong, positive moral values while working diligently—in many cases, at great personal risk—to bring dangerous criminals to justice". However, some commit acts which are unethical, immoral, criminal (including brutality or unjustified shootings) or corrupt. As a consequence, they suffer a strong intellectual and emotional discomfort caused by the conflict between their core values and their behaviours: Cognitive dissonance. There are several common strategies amongst police professionals for reconciling this discomfort which are detailed:  Chief amongst these is 'Blame The Victim' -- in which the involved police officer rationalises that the victim provoked the action in some way. The other top one is "Blame The Circumstance". In this the officer rationalises that he or she really 'had no choice' but to take the action s/he did.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=2290&issue_id=12011

__________________
Karen
Cindy

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #36 
I understand somewhat what you are saying in your last post Karen.  I spent many years working in the Jail System as a nurse, and knew many in law enforcement.  With many of them, I always got the impression that if they hadn't decided to be on the "good" side of the law they would have been on the other side of the badge.  If that makes sense.  

Steve, I understand the plan  you are laying out, and I have no objections to it; it is a positive approach.  However, I guess it's like the chicken vs the egg...which  comes first.  I still believe that the man made a conscious choice to be irresponsible to his dog by his apparent priorities and choices he made.  I truly feel that if people are responsible pet owners, and held accountable we could avoid many of these situations that are so heartbreaking.  Maybe a combination of both would serve us best


__________________
Cindy
kcornel4

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 959
Reply with quote  #37 
Cindy,

Quote:
I always got the impression that if they hadn't decided to be on the "good" side of the law they would have been on the other side of the badge.  If that makes sense.


Yes, it makes sense!  My brother, who is currently a homicide detective but has been in many roles on his police force for almost twenty-five years, has made that observation on many occasions.
 
Quote:
I still believe that the man made a conscious choice to be irresponsible to his dog by his apparent priorities and choices he made.  I truly feel that if people are responsible pet owners, and held accountable we could avoid many of these situations that are so heartbreaking.


As I am sure you will recall from other threads, I am generally in absolute agreement with you about the 'dog problem' -- dogs running loose in packs, attacking, biting and mauling people -- being created by irresponsible dog owners who should be held accountable.  But in this particular case, what I discovered -- and detailed in my first post -- is that there is much, much more to the interaction and its context than is immediately apparent. I hold  strong convictions on a number of subjects, but before I make a judgment, I do try to put all the pieces of the puzzle together. I rarely find that a blanket conclusion/belief will be adequate for every scenario.

__________________
Karen
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Maybe a combination of both would serve us best


Excellent conclusion Cindy!


Quote:
I always got the impression that if they hadn't decided to be on the "good" side of the law they would have been on the other side of the badge.  If that makes sense.


Power & authority attracts both sides of that coin.

There was a study done years ago, which showed that many cops had higher nurturing scores than nurses.

I've also known corrupt cops and there have been many movies made on the subject (e.g. Serpico, et al)

Power & authority is like an aphrodisiac for some and a number of the worst personality types migrate towards that flame.

Many rookies were exposed to sadistic cops on the TPF (tactical patrol force), in which late at night, cops would drive by homeless people and place them in the back of their cars, then proceeded to beat them up and dump them back on the street. The rookies kept their mouths shut for fear of ostracism by the senior cops. Lots of good & bad apples on the force.

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
kcornel4

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 959
Reply with quote  #39 
Quote:
 I truly feel that if people are responsible pet owners, and held accountable we could avoid many of these situations that are so heartbreaking.  Maybe a combination of both would serve us best


Quote:
Excellent conclusion Cindy!


Steve, I think we (three) are agreed on the training aspect. I am curious as to whether you are sincere when you endorse the rest of Cindy's conclusion, and what you are thinking when you say this. When holding irresponsible owners legally and financially accountable for the actions of their dogs (which I absolutely endorse) has come up in discussions in the past, your response has largely been on the order of (paraphrasing) "It won't work and it will just mean more inner city people in jails". 

__________________
Karen
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #40 
I'm agreeing that owners need to be responsible, to a degree, for certain outcomes and that law enforcement needs to become more familiar in handling issues, where large dogs are concerned.

As far as your paraphrasing goes, I can relate it to drug dealing, in that higher penalties only results in longer incarcerations, but does little to resolve the issues.

Education and licensing could reduce clueless ownership of large powerful breeds and would go a lot farther than legal & financial penalties.

If one is found guilty under the latter scenario and one lacks the funds, the dog winds up in the pound.

On the other hand, if one is first screened before being able to purchase a powerful breed, it should reduce the issues under discussion.

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
kcornel4

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 959
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
I'm agreeing that owners need to be responsible, to a degree, for certain outcomes and that law enforcement needs to become more familiar in handling issues, where large dogs are concerned.


Yes, then we are in accord on this point.


Quote:
Education and licensing could reduce clueless ownership of large powerful breeds and would go a lot farther than legal & financial penalties
.

I certainly agree with 'education'. I would even agree with mandatory educational classes for people registering breeds often banned as 'dangerous' (although I still have an issue as to who is empowered to define which breeds are included). However, I would assume the 'licensing' refers to your concept in which an organisation/committee would administer psychological tests to potential breeders/owners of 'powerful' breeds and license those who passed. If I have misinterpreted, please correct me. If this is the case, in my opinion, particularly as there seems to be an issue in many communities about enforcing even extant leash, registration and rabies vaccine laws, it is unrealistic to expect underfunded local or state governmental bodies to create and support such testing and licensing. If the organising body is not local or state government, who would it be? Additionally, what will happen if 'legitimate licensed' breeders or byb's and buyers don't comply? I am again assuming that there would be no legal/financial sanctions (??).

Quote:
....would go a lot farther than legal & financial penalties.
If one is found guilty under the latter scenario and one lacks the funds, the dog winds up in the pound.


I believe that the possibility of financial sanctions (directly related to repairing or compensating the injuries a victim suffered versus arbitrary fines, AND enforced) would act as a deterrent to irresponsible ownership, IF enforced. In addition to the deterrent aspect,  if an incident happens and one lacks the funds, there are many possible compensation schemes that could be utilised. I may be stereotyping, but I have trouble imagining drug dealers (wherever they are located) being in financial straits.

If the owner is held accountable --rather than the dog -- I don't see that it follows as the night the day that the dog will end up in the pound. Only if there are no other family member/friend care-takers.

However, thank you for the clarification.


__________________
Karen
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #42 
Quote:
I'm agreeing that owners need to be responsible, to a degree, for certain outcomes and that law enforcement needs to become more familiar in handling issues, where large dogs are concerned.


Yes, then we are in accord on this point.


Quote:
Education and licensing could reduce clueless ownership of large powerful breeds and would go a lot farther than legal & financial penalties
.

I certainly agree with 'education'. I would even agree with mandatory educational classes for people registering breeds often banned as 'dangerous' (although I still have an issue as to who is empowered to define which breeds are included). However, I would assume the 'licensing' refers to your concept in which an organisation/committee would administer psychological tests to potential breeders/owners of 'powerful' breeds and license those who passed. If I have misinterpreted, please correct me. If this is the case, in my opinion, particularly as there seems to be an issue in many communities about enforcing even extant leash, registration and rabies vaccine laws, it is unrealistic to expect underfunded local or state governmental bodies to create and support such testing and licensing. If the organising body is not local or state government, who would it be? Additionally, what will happen if 'legitimate licensed' breeders or byb's and buyers don't comply? I am again assuming that there would be no legal/financial sanctions (??).

There are many parameters that can be used in obtaining a license. Ideally, a psychological testing procedure, might be the most effective in preventing powerful breeds from being purchased by less powerful minds.
Realistically, the prospective owner should be able to prove his ability to secure and house the breed under review. Any priors should also be part of the process. A loaded gun should not be made available to all who wants one and a powerful breed is certainly a potential 44 caliber weapon.
Quote:
....would go a lot farther than legal & financial penalties.
If one is found guilty under the latter scenario and one lacks the funds, the dog winds up in the pound.


I believe that the possibility of financial sanctions (directly related to repairing or compensating the injuries a victim suffered versus arbitrary fines, AND enforced) would act as a deterrent to irresponsible ownership, IF enforced. In addition to the deterrent aspect,  if an incident happens and one lacks the funds, there are many possible compensation schemes that could be utilised. I may be stereotyping, but I have trouble imagining drug dealers (wherever they are located) being in financial straits.

Some may have the means to pay, but if they do, it's not much of a deterrent! The ones that lack the means, will see their dogs wind up in the pound. If some have little to lose, then once again no impact re consequences, or the benefits of consequences.

If the owner is held accountable --rather than the dog -- I don't see that it follows as the night the day that the dog will end up in the pound. Only if there are no other family member/friend care-takers.

However, thank you for the clarification.


__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
fairwinds

Avatar / Picture

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered:
Posts: 1,448
Reply with quote  #43 
FWIW, I am going to give my opinion from both a dog lover/owner AND a prior police officer. When police respond to any calls there are always a heightened sense of adrenaline that rushes through them. When a call is received for domestic violence OR where a person is armed that doubles. Police need to go into these calls focused and with a plan in place. Having a person interfere jeopardizes not only the officers' lives but those involved and any innocent bystanders.

Police, do NOT get any enjoyment out of ending the life of anything, human or animal.

Most are police officers because they want to make their communities a safer place for their families, kids, and others to live in.

In the first case, the officer did NOT need the distraction from this idiot when responding to an armed robbery call. Who knows if the armed robber wasn't high on coke or whatever. I guarantee they weren't thinking, boy I wish I had a tranq gun. They were thinking about the armed robber and how they were going to handle this case.

People need to give cops a break. They are easy scapegoats and the first to blame but they are the first you call when you need help. JMO.

Dawn
LindaGreesonRice

Avatar / Picture

Board Owner
Registered:
Posts: 7,867
Reply with quote  #44 
Having a rottweiler come at you is a pretty scarey thing - the cops did not have time to think the situation through - I can understand their reaction. I am sure the cop felt bad about the situation after the fact, but at the time he just reacted.
__________________
Linda Greeson Rice
AKC Breeder of Merit

The Mastiff Sweet Spot
http://www.bluequaker.com/Mastiffs.htm



We do not breed often, but we do our best to breed top quality mastiffs
with excellent pedigrees to back them up. All breedings are carefully planned to produce
the very best mastiffs, sound in both body and mind, beautiful and strong,
representing the true mastiff standard.

We fully test our dogs. We believe that a person that "just wants a pet" has a right
to own a beautiful, well bred dog that is sound and healthy
every bit as much as someone wanting a "show dog".
kcornel4

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 959
Reply with quote  #45 
 The officer primarily involved made statements -- on more than one occasion at this point -- that he shot the dog because their duty was to protect Mr. Rosby, who was handcuffed and "kind of defenseless' at that time. Hence, I think it is reasonable to conclude he did not view the dog as 'coming at'  him.
__________________
Karen
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #46 
The ultimate reaction (i.e. the shooting) was perhaps justified.

My argument is what led up to the shooting.

The cops failed to control the factors which led to the fatality.

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Janine

Avatar / Picture

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered:
Posts: 1,524
Reply with quote  #47 
Made the news here in Australia, something about the four officers being taken off street duty, they have all had multiple death threats.  They said this is on You Tube and had 4 million hits or something like that.  Have not checked because I dont want to see it.
The dogs was shot four times I believe, what they need training in is shooting, one should have been enough.  Especially if it was close range.
Janine.
kcornel4

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 959
Reply with quote  #48 
Agree, Steve
__________________
Karen
Raegar

Registered:
Posts: 114
Reply with quote  #49 
I watched the video numerous times and read the statements & first I must say I very much agree with Steve, in the facts that police officers need more training when it comes to handling people with possibly protective animals & I also believe they had poor judgement in this situation.
First, to those who say the officers were in a dangerous situation with the robbery going on, didn't watch the video close enough, the situation was obviously under control, & probably had been for a while, the 2 officers were actually standing over individuals sitting on the curb (probably handcuffed), and were casually conversing with each other. They apparently asked him to turn his music down, (which on the video didn't seem that loud to me), when he didn't comply they obviously made a decision to arrest him.
In my opinion, at the time he put his dog in the car, he did not think he was actually going to be arrested (the dog appeared to be in very good condition, which tells me he cared for his dog). I really can't see that a person who really cares for his dog, leave him in a vehicle to where he could be in jeapordy.
When the officers approached him they obviously told him he was under arrest & to turn around & put his hands behind his back at this point is when the officers should have told him to properly restrain his dog, then they should have called animal control before handcuffing him (they obviously gave no thought to the animals welfare, what were they going to do, just leave him there).
If you noticed the Rottweiler immediately started barking as soon as his master was handcuffed, the officers again paid no attention to the dog which was trying to tell them to leave his master alone, they continue walking with him, while Max continues to bark warnings, he didn't jump out of the vehicle right away & he was even half way out for a while still the cops paid no attention, once again they should have stopped & let him secure his dog!!!
When Max finally does jump out, notice the officer immediately draws his weapon & GOES AT THE DOG, apparently fully intending on pulling the trigger, also note there are at least 4 people just to the right of the officers standing in the yard, not to mention all the people standing across the street filming & no telling how many more we don't see, that could have been injured by a ricochet.
The statement by the seargent who says they were protecting the defenseless dog owner needs to have his head examined!!!
Shoot him FOUR times, do you not think he was trigger happy!!!
Then I read that they would'nt return the body of his dog, so he could properly bury him, what did they do with his body, my guess is the dump grounds.
RIP MAX

__________________
G. L. Morales
SteveOifer

Avatar / Picture

POWER POSTER
Registered:
Posts: 25,882
Reply with quote  #50 
Excerpt:
Quote:

It can be difficult to determine accurate numbers of dog shootings because many police departments do not even require any kind of formal review for the slaying of a dog, and some don’t even have to write a separate report.  But in the public’s eye, every innocent dog shooting is one too many.


http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2012/12/aspca-most-instances-of-police-shooting-dogs-are-avoidable/

__________________
For the betterment of the breed!

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS!
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.